First postseason look: Defense

Doc BearJan 4, 2011 4:00 PM

For all of you who thought on Sunday that Steve Beuerlein was trying for a date with Phil Crimea Rivers and was strangely hard on Tim Tebow, who was in his third game, here are the pertinent facts: As a rookie himself in 1988, Steve played in 10 games and started 8 of them. He had a completion rate of 44.1% along with 8 TDs and 7 INTs. He had a sack percentage of 9.8 and a QB rating of 66.6, which may explain his antipathy to Tim, being the number of all evil (or the numeric short-hand name for Nero, depending on how you read history and the text involved). This guy verbally knocking a rookie for being a rookie is a joke. Remarkable how people have such short memories, isn’t it? Perhaps it was the concussions...

In a lot of ways, it was a fun game to watch. Both teams played as if they were still in some existential playoff hunt, and the usual Bolts/Broncos pushing, shoving and occasional fisticuffs (in a mild sense), inevitably ensued. There were some great moments and some terrible ones. The usual culprit - mistakes, untimely and consistent, gave away the Broncos’ chance at ending with a home win, but nailed for them the second-overall pick in the draft, something that Denver has no experience with in modern times. All in all, I like that they have the pick.

Watching the Defense

There were a couple of things that I noticed while going over the game film again yesterday. Unlike most of my postgame experiences with film, I made less of a point of watching things other than the ball. In fact, I focused on it substantially, but not when Denver had it. I was interested in watching the Broncos' defense, and keeping track of who was doing what.

This was not a stat-driven interest. I love stats, and I also leave them to people like TJ and Doug, who have experience with them and an understanding of them that goes far beyond my own. Stats fail in one area, though, where film is necessary. A simple example is a running play that goes off tackle. There will be a stat for a player or a couple of players who make the tackle, which is as it should be. Quite often, though, the tackle was the outcome of a couple of players who won’t appear on the stat sheet - the safety who comes up and seals off a running lane or the DE who sits his bubble down and holds off two blockers.

Then there's the linebacker or two who seal an edge, driving the runner into the tackler(s), or who see the DE working on two linemen and spread out the obstacles by coming in on either side of him, knowing that one or the other will also be in the runner’s way. In short, I was far more interested in finding out who was around the ball consistently than I was in who got the stat for the play. There are times when the same player manages both, but as often as not, the players who make the play possible aren’t on the stat sheet for that play.

I did read over the Denver Post’s Analysis of Broncos' roster this morning, although I had finished my own before then. There were things that we agreed on and others we did not. I’ll start with the defense today, and first of all with the DL, because in many ways, it’s the most confusing for fans. In a Bullough-based 3-4, the linemen are there as roadblocks. They are directed to take on two blockers as much as possible, and to let the linebackers handle the cleanup as much as anything else. As a result, fans who haven’t heard a certain name for a while often assume that the player hasn’t been producing. You’ll get a lot of fans who are on that level pointing at the stat line - are the DL players racking up tackles, sacks, forcing fumbles? If not, aren’t they doing a poor job? The fact is that it really doesn’t matter. Sure, it’s nice if it happens, but a lineman can have a great game and not get his number mentioned once.

Three players on the DL had excellent games Sunday, and a fourth earned a mention. Justin Bannan has been consistently playing at a very high level, and his game against the Bolts was no exception. He moved the pile toward the QB, chased Rivers out of the pocket, blew up plays in the backfield, and obstructed the left side of the line well. You would also find him in backside pursuit, occupying and shoving off blockers as well as being in on tackles. Remember - they don’t give out 2 tackles on one play. They may give a half to each of two players, but when Denver is playing at its best, they are gang-tackling. Bannan was around the ball constantly. He’s been playing like that for much of the season, and he was a heck of a good investment. He can play any of the positions, and can play in a 4-3 or a 3-4. It was a great job on his part. After the game, Bannan said,

All I can speak from is experience -- in '07 I went 4-12 on the Ravens, the next year we were in the AFC Championship. I'm really optimistic about the future here.

Marcus Thomas has been a top rotational player, and until he went down injured, he was having another good game. He’s a free agent, and Denver ought to get smart and get him a contract as soon as it’s possible. Like Bannan, he can play anywhere on a 3-4, 4-3 or 5-2 system. Solid rotational depth is one of the signs of a good team - Thomas should be part of that for Denver. As a 4-3 undertackle, he could start if he continues to improve as he has.

Kevin Vickerson had one of his best games of the season. There were whole series in which every time I looked up, it seemed that he was around the ball, clogging up lanes, taking down runners and even chasing the QB. He’s not fleet of foot, but he’s athletic and talented in a smaller space. Vickerson is somewhere between a very good rotational player and a starter - and Denver needs both. I’d expect him back.

I’m not going to go over every player at every position, but at DL, it turned out that Jamal Williams had one of his better games as well and I’m not going to leave him off. I’m torn on Williams - too often, they’re moving him out of the way to break off a good run up the middle. He’s lost some speed, and even though he’s very big (though as I’ve mentioned, he lost 20 lb. during the first half of the season in order to play in Denver, so he’s really about 325-330), he’s not the most effective guy on the Broncos' line. He had a very good game, though, so more power to him. No predictions on whether he’ll be back - scheme will play a big role.

Linebacker

There was one reason that Jamal Williams looked better, and that was that Wes Woodyard was playing with him in the middle. I don’t know why they diddn’t set WW loose earlier as an ILB, but he was all over the field in the best of ways, and has been since they moved him to this role. He’s going to be back next year, and he ought to be in the mix to start. He was blowing up plays, putting pressure on Rivers who, unfortunately for Denver, is the top QB in the league against the blitz. Despite his odd mechanics (which have zero to do with Tebow’s odd mechanics, by the way: they’re very different), Rivers can get the ball out fast and with accuracy.

But Woodyard seems to be showing that ILB is where he belongs. Whatever the next scheme, it’s past time that he started in it. I thought that WW should have beaten out DJ Williams back in 2008 - after this year, I’m sure of it. By the way, to give him his due, DJ had what was mostly a very good game Sunday. I wish he’d have done so sooner and/or with more regularity, but it was nonetheless a good game for him.

Mario Haggan has broken the 30-year old barrier, but he plays like a kid. He’s tough, determined and doesn’t make a lot of mistakes. He’s another guy who was around the ball all day. Robert Ayers hasn’t been quite the same since he hurt his foot - I looked at film of him when he was playing well early in the year, and he looked visibly faster. Both of them should be back next year.

Cornerback

I don’t know if Perrish Cox will be in Denver or in prison next year, but he isn’t ready to start. It’s really that simple. I deeply hope that Denver locks up Champ Bailey for two or three years - probably three - and then slides him to safety. He could have five years left. And, for the record - he was robbed on the Pro Bowl. I hope he makes it, and he probably will with someone dropping due to the playoffs, but he should have been in there already.

Syd’Quan Thompson is interesting - you’d expect a 7th-round player to need to develop, and he does. He rarely has gone a game without at least one impressive play, though, and he was there again Sunday. If he can become more consistent over the next couple of years, he might become a very good player - perhaps at nickel. Consistency is his watchword - without it, he’s not going to last, and with it he could be around for quite a while.

Andre' Goodman has shown over and over how important he is - it seemed all year that either he or Champ had been injured, and yes, they’re both over 30. He had a good game Sunday, and kept it from being a blowout with several excellent plays. He even had a couple of great tackles, and that’s not usually his game. Cassius Vaughn, of course, just showed that you might want to keep him (and Eric Decker) around for the returns. What a great run Vaughn had! STs - that’s one area where SD has gone from penthouse to outhouse, and that’s a big reason they aren’t in the playoffs.

Safety

Did Denver have someone besides Brian Dawkins out there? I’m kidding, of course - Renaldo Hill didn’t have his best game, but he was solid. Dawkins was playing like it was his last game, and perhaps it was. He’s always said that he’d stop when he slowed down, and this year, he did. If it was his last, he went out in style. I loved the safety blitz that took down Rivers - no matter how fast your release, if you don’t see a guy coming in untouched and your coach didn’t call a smoke route, you’re in serious trouble. Rivers may still be spitting out turf from that one.

Rather than turn this into a graduate thesis, I’m going to take the offense tomorrow. Tebow’s situation is going to obviously play heavily, and there are some things that you might have seen Sunday, if you were looking, that might have seemed familiar. In fact, they were very, very old. There was a rookie lineman who also played a role in that old school football, and he’s coming on fast. I’ll see you tomorrow.

Learn to laugh at yourself. You will be ceaselessly amused. - Sri Gary Olsen

You can reach Doc at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or follow him on Twitter @alloverfatman

From what I&#8217ve heard and read from TJ and Doug, your beliefs on what wins championships is accurate. Offense seems to predominate, although a balanced approach with all three areas Special Teams, which is often ignored, offense and defense, but the passing offense has to be of high quality. There are always exceptions, but it&#8217s my understanding that you&#8217re right on the issue of championships in the NFL.

I&#8217d also have to agree on the &#8216balanced&#8217 original design, and the problems with Hamilton, who did no better in Seattle before being injured again, Wiegmann who is solely a ZB center and Harris, who will be permitted to explore the market before Denver attempts to resign him - the injury issues will affect his price tag. It should be interesting to see what happens there - it would be a tough year to find a draft pick on a high-quality RT, given out other needs. Thanks again!

Posted by Doc Bear on 2011-01-05 22:30:05

One last point that I forgot to add: if you have a solid OL you can not only run and pass but by controlling the TOP, you are able to keep your defense off the field.

Certainly when you are facing Payton Manning who only needs about 18 minutes to bury you, you have to have a decent D. But keeping your own D off the field many times makes up for some of its inadequacies.

Championships are won by offense - not so much the defense being the primary focus. Just my opinion.

Posted by BlackKnight on 2011-01-05 22:08:27

My sense about McDaniels&#8217 intent in building this team was to do it in a balanced fashion. That being said, there were many things that happened that pushed that balance off center. In the 2009 draft, there were very few decent DL guys who would make an immediate impact. So Ayers was drafted. Baker, Fields by FA - I missed some - it feels like a decade ago. But 2 S and 1 CB were drafted as well as 3 DBs picked up in FA.

I think that McDaniels was pointing to the 2010 draft as the time to stock up on front 7 guys. However, when he had to replace 2 of the OL people, that threw a huge curve into his plans. So he picked up some additional D people in FA.

Running game? You have to have a decent OL to have a decent run game. That ended when Harris went down in game 7 of 2009. That was supposed to be a strength of this team.

I don&#8217t think that any imbalance was by design. When McDaniels began this project, I think that he foresaw a 1 - 1 1/2 - 2 year &#8220rebuilding project&#8221 that would be done before anyone could think rebuild. IMO the weakness of the OL threw a big kink into it. This team was in worse shape then he thought.

Had Shanahan stayed into the 2009 season, I bet that they would have scrambled for 3-4 wins.

Just thought some perspective was needed.

Posted by BlackKnight on 2011-01-05 22:01:47

Sleepy, sorry &#8216bout the confusion. I should&#8217ve been more specific sooner. McD&#8217s plan wasn&#8217t well balanced. On one hand, it was too much (offense); on the other, it was haphazard and reactionary (defensive side of the ball).

Doc, I understand your point. It&#8217s a team. The HC is responsible for the performance of the entire team. And, it&#8217s exactly why I thought McDaniels did a crappy job. He produced a one-dimensional offensive-only team (good yardage in the pass game, lousy in the run) that couldn&#8217t produce inside the 20&#8217s and struggled with 3rd downs. So, it was great if they were handing out trophies for passing yards. Yippee.

The true end-game of a head coach&#8217s job is to build a team to win. If it&#8217s only change they need, bring in Obama&#8230lol.

Posted by jtomasik on 2011-01-05 19:41:01

Good read! We need to sign Champ immediately. I agree that Cox just doesn&#8217t have the speed to be a shut-down CB. People wanting us to draft Amukamura don&#8217t realize he&#8217s exactly the same way. Fortunately, I don&#8217t see a lot of clamoring for him, so that&#8217s good.

Everything isn&#8217t rosy by any means, but with Doom back, and some of the guys getting healthy it will help. I asked a friend of mine who is a Chiefs fan how he thought they would be this year if Hali was out all year&#8230.. he didn&#8217t agree with my assessment that they wouldn&#8217t have made the playoffs. Yeah right.

My BIGGEST concern from this year&#8230..How can we look pretty solid on D, and then give up the huge plays that lose games&#8230.. Giving up the big plays really killed us this year.

Posted by Broncotodd on 2011-01-05 16:14:41

Doc&#8230 First off, as always, thanks for taking the time. Really appreciate the job you guys are doing over here. This site is a beacon of reality in a crazy, nutty fan-base.

Vickerson is a very disruptive force on the line in my opinion too. Most importantly, I love the energy he brings. That man loves his job.

Looking ahead at TC, whenever that ends up being, I think it&#8217s very possible that WW and Mays may be the starting pair inside, and another pair with some energy and attitude. That would mean the elephant that just entered the room is DJ and his future on this team. I would also love to see us pick up an ILB in the early rounds, unless we switch back to the 4-3, in which case I&#8217d think we may be just fine with WW, Mays, and DJ.

The future of the safety position worries me. I think we missed out on some excellent safety prospects in the last few years. Nothing against McBath or Bruton, but if their names were Delmas, Mays, Berry, Chung, or Thomas instead, I&#8217d feel much better. Maybe Champ is the future answer, but I&#8217m not sure either of our backups are ready to replace Dawkins or Hill in the mean-time.

Posted by donbok1 on 2011-01-05 06:05:28

JT&#8230 OK, I understand and agree. I thought you were talking defense. It does seem like a lot was focused on Offense the first FA period. He brought in 3 rb&#8217s and only Buckhalter is left. Then he spent a 1st on Moreno. The worst position in my opinion to draft in the first round is RB because it is the position that has the greatest bust rate as 1st round picks go. Second RB is the position with thew greatest chance of injury and the lowest longevity. The line was fine but he desperately needed a Gaurd a FA should have been used on a Gaurd rather than RB. Hindsight is always 20/20 though. QB is in much better shape. Even Simms was a better backup than what Denver had before.

Posted by sleepyteak on 2011-01-05 03:46:21

ND, thanks for the compliment. I&#8217ve never found that focusing only on problems solves much. Solutions interest me more. It&#8217s not that I&#8217m a Pollyanna about the issues that we face - in the team, or in our lives. It&#8217s just that identifying the problem is helpful - letting it run your life is pointless (and depressing).

Jt, there&#8217s a basic principle that with all due respect for your passion (which I truly do admire), may have escaped you. McD, like most new coaches, was hired to change the offense as well as the defense.

I don&#8217t think that the FO, McD or even the players really understood how thin the roster had gotten, and that was true on offense as well.

Cutler needed to fail to realize that he wasn&#8217t the next incarnation of Elway. Tony Scheffler was always playing hot and cold, and while I rooted for him to improve, it never really happened. The line problems had zero to do with McD, and they were probably the worst issue that we&#8217ve had to deal with. The RB corps was vacant.

The receivers were Marshall, the resident head case, and Royal. There was never a 4th WR, and our slot receiver, Brandon Stokes, was getting old. McD didn&#8217t really do that much - the player themselves did a lot. I&#8217m not making excuses for anyone - this is simply how I see what happened. McD was hired to make changes. Some of the players couldn&#8217t handle it - it happens all the time.

Posted by Doc Bear on 2011-01-05 03:44:15

Know what I like about this article? It isn&#8217t at MHR. Everything is how everyone sucks. According to everyone over there you could have written this article by saying, &#8220I watch the defense..they all suck. Explode the talentless group and start over&#8221

Posted by NDbronco on 2011-01-05 03:29:59

Hey, guys. Thanks for your comments - I was dealing with a small medical issue and just got back.

First - a general thing, and La French, your comment is just fine. What I did on this article was simply watch for who was around the ball last Sunday - who was playing like they were worth keeping on. There are probably others - it was just the film of one game, although some of the players, like Bannan, have impressed for a while. Lots of guys weren&#8217t mentioned - there is a reason for that. They didn&#8217t seem to be around the ball, and that was all that I kept an eye on today. I have a series coming up that deals with positions and individual players as they showed through the season. I don&#8217t have a lot of confusion as to why they are giving up big plays, but it was literally a subject for a different day. Good call on your part.

I&#8217m not really down on Cox, chantech. I recognize that he&#8217s just a rookie, and he&#8217s kind of been thrown to the wolves in a sense, since he had to fill in for Goodman, and the defense only played well when Goodman AND Champ were starting. there&#8217s a long tradition of people playing next to or without Champ getting eaten by the passing game. That&#8217s why I&#8217d like to see both starting in the next season Whenever It May Be (I may go to WIMB to save time).

However - there are two legit, in my opinion, knocks on Cox. He lacks high end speed, and he&#8217s caught out of position too often. the second is fixable, surely. He has the quicks to handle shorter routes with more experience, but I have concerns about his ability to cover longer routes, and this was one thing that caused him to drop to the 5th round. The other, his actions, may land him in jail, in which case this is all moot. The article is only on what happened on this one day, and he was often exposed. If he can return, I think that you&#8217re right - he&#8217s going to develop, just like any rookie. I worry about his ceiling, that&#8217s all.

OutOYE, I agree, and I&#8217ve noted this before. The D needs a couple of serious playmakers. Despite the tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater, this is a defense of good role players and some rising players as well. The lists you and EastCB brought up are right on target - this was the kind of year when the ball bounces against you, everything goes wrong and the injuries literally started from the first week of training camp.

Before people start on the &#8216It&#8217s all McD&#8217 stuff, the same approach to TC has been used by other teams with good success and worked fine for the first 6 games of last year. It&#8217s happened with lots of teams - it&#8217s part of the game. The next year, people (like Doom, for instance) stay healthy and the team rises. You add the players your need, and you realize that they, too will take some time to develop.

However - you can and should see improvement right away. To say that this team has less playmakers than Shanahan&#8217s last defense is selective memory. That group was far worse. I&#8217ve asked before, but who pines for Bob Slowik? Nate Webster? D. Robertson? Jamie Winborn? M. Manuel? The list is long. Most of that group are out of football, not due to being fired in Denver, but because no one else would have them. Sad, but true. Bannan knows what he&#8217s talking about.

Posted by Doc Bear on 2011-01-05 03:03:58

Sleepy, I was referring to the overhaul of the offense that McD did. Some things could&#8217ve been left alone and probably served him as well or better. I&#8217m saying whoever takes over should keep some for stability while the transition is being made. And, that includes the horrid defense.

Posted by jtomasik on 2011-01-05 02:59:45

Doc, you bring the sunshine on an otherwise dark side of the moon (I mean ball).

I have to say that I am not quite flush with optimism with the defensive personnel we have right now. As was said, we have some solid players (backups) just not any blue chippers (aside from Champ).

Health is the biggest issue. Will Doom and the other players who finished the season on the IR come back healthy enough to play 100% - or close?

I&#8217d love it if in free agency we get solid (if not a blue chipper or two) at LB (both ILB and OLB). Then we can focus the top of the draft on DL and DB.

Posted by Orange and Blue on 2011-01-05 01:49:34

JT what do you mean McD replaced them too immediatly. The safties, defensive ends, middle linebackers couldn&#8217t even play on another team. At least now they have players that can be at least backups on other teams.

Posted by sleepyteak on 2011-01-04 23:56:15

Eastcoast, I agree you don&#8217t want to replace all of them immediately. That was my beef with McD. He went too deep too soon without figuring out what he could work with.

But, there isn&#8217t much on the good side of average on this team right now. I sure as hell wouldn&#8217t weigh the team based on playing what was essentially a garbage game.

To make a top 5 defense, eventually the changes will go very, very deep.

Posted by jtomasik on 2011-01-04 23:50:22

&#8220Replace them with home&#8221 = replace them with whom.

Posted by EastCoastBronco on 2011-01-04 23:43:28

Doc, great write-up as always. I haven&#8217t been able to watch a game in over a month, so hearing your review (of which I greatly trust) is a great help to me.

I am in COMPLETE agreeance in regards to Bannan and WW. I also like what little I&#8217ve seen of vickerson. I&#8217ve also long pulled for M.Thomas and I&#8217m glad to see he&#8217s filling his role. I still don&#8217t think we&#8217ve seen his ceiling, nor are we close.

Next year has promise. If we can add some quality to the DL (don&#8217t forget dline usually takes a few years to fully develop so my expectations for an immediate impact, game-changer in the draft for dline is low), add a playmaker or two to the LBs, resign champ, draft a young CB or two and seal up the safety, we may be in great shape. A lot of ifs but don&#8217t forget this;

Doom will be back

Mays will be back

Ayers will be healthy

Haggan will have experience

There&#8217s another young OLB who&#8217s name I can&#8217t remember who was impressive

Experienced Dline with some upside

Hopefully champ returns with goodman

Some good, young CBs behind them

Hill who I&#8217m ify about

Bruton and McBath whom I think can both be good - great if they can just stay healthy.

There&#8217s some upside there. A lot of ifs, I understand. At this point, we don&#8217t even know who our coach will be and what scheme will be implemented. But still, there is hope. This is why comments like JT&#8217s I try to blow past. Gut the whole D? And replace them with home? All rookies? All high-priced FAs? Work out a trade with the Jets, there D for our D and 5 foot models? You can&#8217t just gut a team and expect to win immediatly. Just ask McD. It takes more then 1.75 years&#8230

Posted by EastCoastBronco on 2011-01-04 23:39:03

Just curious, what were your issues with Cox? From watching him, it looks like he has good technique, has the speed to stay with receivers, and has been impressive as a rookie.

I can think of 2 plays where he got beaten, one questionable pass interference, and another where Jackson made a great catch on a perfect throw with Cox in position. He does get beaten, but not more than any other rookie CB does. He also doesn&#8217t seem to adjust to the ball or make a play on the ball well once in the air, but I attribute that to inexperience more than anything.

Posted by chantech on 2011-01-04 23:22:57

Champ is still the man.

Posted by OutOfYourElement on 2011-01-04 23:03:11

What I gathered from Bannan&#8217s comment about being 4-12 then AFC Championship is that the Broncos are full of quality role players. With the addition of a few disruptive players, all of a sudden, the defense has a whole new nasty look.

A disruptive End/Tackle? (along with the return of Doom)

A dominant LB?

A playmaking Safety?

Things start looking much different with a few playmakers.

What I gather from Doc&#8217s writeup is that there isn&#8217t a lot of terrible on the field, just not much greatness. Here&#8217s to the upcoming draft and a chance at a few more playmakers!!

Posted by OutOfYourElement on 2011-01-04 23:00:59

LF I think the defense plays good as a whole. You may say look this is one of the worst defenses ever. I don&#8217t know how many times this year I thought that the defense played the run well but then look at the yards given up and the number was huge. reason why, they gave up 2 or 3 very long runs. I think Denver led the league in giving up plays. So you watch film and a player does well most of the time then there is a minority of plays that one person or another fails and big play. I think it is the style of Defense that is being played, not so much the personel. I think that is were I&#8217m having a problem is because MSM says there is &#8220holes all over the defense&#8221 and I&#8217m thinking, &#8220who is the great handicap?&#8221 Who do you not want on your team?

Bailey Thomas and Harris need to be signed.

Posted by sleepyteak on 2011-01-04 22:39:26

I&#8217m in complete disagreement. The last game of the season between two teams with nothing to play for can&#8217t be realistically used to gauge anything. This defense stunk it up all year.

Pretty much flush them. The linebackers aren&#8217t even average for the NFL. They need to be completely cleaned out or pushed down the ranks to let in new blood. The line needs to be gone except Dumervil. Keep Bailey on staff to groom new recruits. Draft in a hurry. Wink needs to be gone now.

Posted by jtomasik on 2011-01-04 22:33:05

Doc, this is probably going to come across differently than I mean for it to, but an honest question: having watched the film, you appear to be generally impressed with the play of most everyone on the defense in the SD game (aside from Cox; and clearly, less impressed with some rather than others). Overall, your review reads &#8220sunny&#8221. However, the reality is that the defense gave up 33 points, so there clearly is some sort of disconnect here. I could only listen to the game via koa.com, so I have no specific argument one way or the other. However, given the play you describe, why so many points surrendered?

Thanks, as always, for your insight!

Posted by La French on 2011-01-04 22:04:26

Excellent piece of work, Doc. I am with you on WW. He is a guy who thrives on being where the ball is and making plays. I hope he gets the opportunity to start next season.

I have always had a high regard for Bannan. Coming out of CU, I wish we could have drafted him - but we have him now. I like his perspective on going from 4-12 to the AFC Championship. I felt fairly secure when McDaniels was here that that was a high possibility next year - but we need to see who is in charge in 2011.

Hopefully, our FO will start getting these guys in the corral for the next few years.

Always appreciate your observations, Doc. And your time and energy! Looking forward to tomorrow. I am betting that the OL guy you are referring to is Beadles. (I did not see the game.)